From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4ff929aa5c2b2834
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ranges and (non)static constraints
Date: 20 Nov 2006 09:35:18 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1164044118.777142.293750@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
References: <ejhgfn$jq9$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
   <1pqs0gcno5o2t.1195tm9yap28b.dlg@40tude.net>
   <uh6ije.uoh.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
   <g2go52hf14qn.16tb2xiy7ilrf.dlg@40tude.net>
   <tc3kje.tmr.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
   <160ziiyah2n7g.5k340gtji747.dlg@40tude.net>
   <wCo7h.283942$1i1.122160@attbi_s72>
   <wccpsbld3sn.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
   <siP7h.242316$FQ1.162316@attbi_s71>
   <wcck61rxd7r.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1164044122 30142 127.0.0.1 (20 Nov 2006 17:35:22
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:35:22 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
   posting-account=cw1zeQwAAABOY2vF_g6V_9cdsyY_wV9w
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7583
Date: 2006-11-20T09:35:18-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff wrote:

> OK.  I'm sure I will enjoy reading the RM for it someday.
>
> But are you sure you want to define it by what it is NOT,
> rather than what it IS?  ;-)

That would indeed be interesting.  Instead of specifying the correct
syntax for anything, the RM would specify only what constructs are
illegal.  Then any program that doesn't violate one of the RM rules
would be legal by default, and Jeff's compiler would have to figure out
what the program is supposed to do and compile it correctly.  :)

                        -- Adam